167 N.W. 1055 | S.D. | 1918
Lead Opinion
•Gerti-orari proceedings instituted in this clciu-rt against the state 'securities commission-, pu-rsluanit to the provisions of chapter 275, Laws 1915. It i.s) charged that such body erred! lin finding that plaintiff’s proposed!' plan of business is of -s-u'ch a nature that the sate of its Capital stock would work a fraud -upon 'the purchasers thereof, and erred in i-ts order o-f March 14, 1918, refusing plaintiff’s application for permi-t to- sell its capital stock.
The jurisdiction of the 'commission to -act in th-e matter before it is not questioned', but we are called upon to review the correctness- of such oomtoiiissi-on’s determination-. Defendants concede, andl we itherefloire assume, but do hot decidej that such statute -gives us jurisdiction to review the . correctness Gif' the finding and order of the commission. We ■ are of the opinion that there was evidence ample to justify the commission's coo-duding that ¡the contents of plaintiff’s articles -oif incorporation
The ondler Of the state securities! camimlisslioin: should be, and it is, affirmed.
Concurrence Opinion
(iconicurring (specially). I dta not disagree with the apiniion, if we aire to» consider the merits. I -do, ¡however, question whether (by section 22, c. 275, Laws 1915, it was the legislative intent to enlarge the sidqpie of .the whit of certiorari, as defined in section 760, C. C. P., and therefore whether we ought to 'consider the merits, even under plaintiff s concession.
